View/Open

Year

Permanent link

Metadata

Appears in the following Collection

Abstract

Popular Mobilisation against Democracy? The Case of »Ley de Participación Popular» in Bolivia, Latin America

The problem: This thesis examines the manifestation of indigenous mobilisation and protest against a new law reform called «Ley de Participación Popular» (No. 1551) dated 20th April 1994. It is a surprising paradox that a law which gives new rights and intends to include previously excluded groups in the political system on the local level, is met with resistance from these same groups. My argument is that the law maintains political exclusion for a majority of the population[4]. Even though the intention of the law is good, the political parties today actually block the fulfilment of the vision of the former Aymara vice-president, Victor Hugo Cárdenas. His vision was that marginalisation, inequality and discrimination would diminish in Bolivia, in the process of constructing a multicultural, multiethnic and multinational country.

The content of the law: The law represents new aspects that are related to four main areas. Firstly: Together with the Constitution of 1994, the law creates 311 autonomous municipal governments. These new municipalities receive 20% of the national tax revenue, distributed according to population. The responsibility concerning a) education, b) health and c) infrastructure is transferred to the municipal level. The law provides a financial and administrative decentralisation between La Paz, the nine departments (administrative regions) and 311 municipalities. These changes address the problem of earlier concentration of resources in the three territorial departments dominated by the urban centres of La Paz, Santa Cruz and Cochabamba. Secondly: The law recognises the existence of more than one tradition of local government. The traditional Indian organisations are recognised and given a juridical personality under the title «Organizaciones Territoriales de Base» (OTB). This addresses the limited scope of the Bolivian democracy. The former political systems only allowed marginal participation and only to a minority of those whose lives were affected by government decisions. Thirdly: The framework of the municipal government is the representative democracy, but the OTBs are responsible for electing a control committee (CV), which is responsible for controlling the use of resources by the local government. This addresses the lack of administrative capacity of the executing institutions. Fourthly and lastly: Women and men are guaranteed equal legal rights under the law.

The question: The law attempts to do something about serious limitations of the formal democracy in Bolivia, - but does it really lead to further participation[5] and inclusion of the previously excluded Indians? - and, if not, why?

Four points: In the analysis I have identified four reasons for a better understanding of why the law only seems to result in formal inclusion, but continues to exclude the Indians socially and culturally from the state. The first reason is that the Indian organisations cannot participate in elections on the local level. The second reason is that the existing political parties only represent a small, white mestise-elite and not the rich variations of different cultural identities in Bolivia. The third reason is that the administration is dysfunctional, and lastly, the unequal economic situation in the region makes it necessary for many people of Indian origin to «sell» their political will in order to survive on a short-term basis. As a result the Indians are subordinated in a badly functioning liberal representative democracy, in which they are not really represented.

The local focus: Mohan and Stokke (1999) point out that recent discussions on development have moved away from a holistic theorisation towards more localised, empirical and inductive approaches. In development practice there has been a parallel move towards local «participation» and «empowerment», which in spite of very different agendas, has produced a high level of agreement between actors and institutions of the «new» Left and the «new» Right. I support the argument that by focusing so heavily on the «local» there is a tendency to downplay both local inequalities and established power relations, as well as national and transitional economic and political forces. The paradoxical consensus over the role of «local participation» in a globalising world is fraught with political dangers. It is argued by Mohan and Stokke (1999) that the role of the state and transitional powerholders can be underestimated and cement Eurocentric solutions to Third World development. With this in mind I argue that the vague and contrasting meanings of local participation and democracy, both in theory and in development practice, are part of the problem and the reality that the «excluded», indian groups in Latin-America are trying to survive in, escape from or adapt to.

[4] The groups of indigenous people account for 71 - 85 percent of the population, depending on the definition used.

[5] The World Bank, the neoliberal position, and the radical position, post-Marxism, both look upon popular participation as necessary in the next millennium. However, from the neoliberal political view, the excluded can be included without significant change in the power relations - this is inconceivable from a radical point of view.